Lúthien wrote:[...] What Dave is trying to say is that you should be aware to what level of specificity you can apply an imaginal experience to the factual realm. It seems most people aren't aware of this "need to be careful", resulting in all sorts of weird statements.

Exactly, Luthien, and thanks for elucidating my point(s).

We (that is, Luthien and Dineen and I) have seen all manner of weird statements due to the "unawareness of the need to be careful", and unfortunately, they aren't just restricted to levels of measurement errors. Remember Ol' "Mad as a Hatter" RavenWolf? He saw patterns in autumn leaves on the ground and claimed that they were portents of some Orc-host ghost army, or some such (sprinkled in with Grey aliens for the D-9 effect, I suppose).

That is a true-life example of what happens when you let lack of discernment and baseless extrapolation run full speed ahead with no braking. Of course, there are many other such examples, but aside from listing them parenthetically, I'm not going to detail them, as they are all variations on the same theme ((Ms. "Dagor Dagorath is coming, and there are Melkorist Internet forums stirring!"; Mr. "Has anyone else had sexual fantasies about Ulmo?"; Mr. "Earendil = Lucifer, because they both reference words for the Morning Star. Q.E.D.!").

ginnie wrote:No, I don't know if it's possible to relate one world to another, they Appear to only be able to connect when speaking with those who have undergone a like experience, and those communications are often frail and wispy.

I don't know either. Dave has more outspoken ideas about this (as he explains in this topic as well).
It's also that this relating the imaginal to the factual world simply does not interest me as much as the imaginal experience by itself (and the creative products resulting from those experiences).
I'm not sure about the frail and wispy though. Oftentimes I find the withered leaves that once were fairy gold quite impressive and profound, even if they pale indeed compared to the original experience.

ginnie wrote:What I was talking about was the framework of the experience, in this case, the story, the mythology, the symbolism is the framework. Looking at this framework is of great interest to some and holds little to no interest for others.

Ah, then you were indeed using that word in a different sense. Maybe it's because I am so thoroughly fed up with the Java EnterpriseSoftware Frameworks in my job.
I understood it as an intellectual / conceptual framework of ideas that would put the whole imaginal experience somewhere in a philosophical, or psychological, or religious or even scientific context, possibly also providing an explanation for how it might work.

That what you call framework, I have always thought about as something like creative or report-like expression of the experience, or maybe, carrier?

ginnie wrote:From my experience concepts need to be abandoned, the stranglehold of conceptions make the experience a no-go. .

That is precisely what I meant all the time.

ginnie wrote:However, when we wish to communicate these experiences then some framework is required.

Sure, but I just would not think of that as a framework, because that implies that there is a frame within which everything must necessarily stay.
Of course paint and music and drama all have their limits, but those limits feel more .. flexible, maybe?

ginnie wrote:This is so beautifully stated. I'm of two minds on this tho. No amount of intellectual information will unlock these doors, one must experience and only then speak of a thing otherwise it's all speculation. Yet, perhaps studying the frameworks allows some to approach these experiences in a, for them, safe way and provides the necessary energy to persist until they cross the threshold. You are completely right tho, standing in the vestibule and speaking of that which lies beyond is not the same as entering.

In the above, do you mean frameworks as in "the experience, in this case, the story, the mythology, the symbolism" or as how I understood it?

ginnie wrote:I think I understand, and I feel this too, because when I have felt like this I don't want to contaminate my message with undue influence because that leads to more conceptualization, and it also seems to threaten the freeness through must be present in order to look where one points.

Exactly, yes.

ginnie wrote:I don't know how else to express this. Influence may have the touch of violence in it?

I don't understand the bit about violence
Or maybe you refer to what I said about that I don't like to write like this ? That's not because it feels violent ... it feels unpleasant because I don't like discussions in the sense of "arguing" , which are almost often pointless and serve no purpose other than to deepen the gap that there was before the discussion took off.
In this case it felt as if I was repeatedly not understood (which was a bit frustrating), coupled with the sense that it was nonetheless important to keep trying (because I truly feel that it is an important point). This sort of forced me to do something that I seriously dislike, ie., to keep on trying to make this point clear. And because I really like Sarek a lot in a personal way I started to feel like I was nagging in a most hair-pulling way.

It was maybe a kind of cognitive dissonance. Like having been forced to shout all day to a class full of people with very sensitive ears

ginnie wrote:Tho, what I am hearing is more a plea, maybe, "no, I want to journey with, my soul is lonely..join me"?

I won't deny that I have often felt like that, indeed.
It seems to come with doing this sort of thing. So yeah, that would indeed be great.(although I never felt alone in the Imaginal world, that's funny. Quite the contrary: it feels like home.)

Lúthien wrote:[...] What Dave is trying to say is that you should be aware to what level of specificity you can apply an imaginal experience to the factual realm. It seems most people aren't aware of this "need to be careful", resulting in all sorts of weird statements.

Exactly, Luthien, and thanks for elucidating my point(s).

We (that is, Luthien and Dineen and I) have seen all manner of weird statements due to the "unawareness of the need to be careful", and unfortunately, they aren't just restricted to levels of measurement errors. Remember Ol' "Mad as a Hatter" RavenWolf? He saw patterns in autumn leaves on the ground and claimed that they were portents of some Orc-host ghost army, or some such (sprinkled in with Grey aliens for the D-9 effect, I suppose).

That is a true-life example of what happens when you let lack of discernment and baseless extrapolation run full speed ahead with no braking. Of course, there are many other such examples, but aside from listing them parenthetically, I'm not going to detail them, as they are all variations on the same theme ((Ms. "Dagor Dagorath is coming, and there are Melkorist Internet forums stirring!"; Mr. "Has anyone else had sexual fantasies about Ulmo?"; Mr. "Earendil = Lucifer, because they both reference words for the Morning Star. Q.E.D.!").

I really appreciate you both explaining this, I don't know why but I could not simplify it, it was like trying to figure out a complex ikea instruction and totally messing it up for me.

I agree very much with what you're saying as regards any sort of 'factual' statements and the need for care. I'm slowly working out how I will contribute here. My own area of expertise is a bit more traditional gnostic/mystic background and it does relate very well, but it is a bit slow going for me to get a 'feel' here. I don't really know how else to explain that. Once I get a good feel then things come easiuer for me, and I assure you that in this regard it's a wholly personal method that is specific to myself.

I do like the way you turn a phrase, I do share your distaste of loop de loop flakeyness and I can tell you it's refreshing not to encounter that here.

ginnie wrote:No, I don't know if it's possible to relate one world to another, they Appear to only be able to connect when speaking with those who have undergone a like experience, and those communications are often frail and wispy.

I don't know either. Dave has more outspoken ideas about this (as he explains in this topic as well).
It's also that this relating the imaginal to the factual world simply does not interest me as much as the imaginal experience by itself (and the creative products resulting from those experiences).
I'm not sure about the frail and wispy though. Oftentimes I find the withered leaves that once were fairy gold quite impressive and profound, even if they pale indeed compared to the original experience.

Oh, yes, I think they can be quite profound, I also find that those withered leaves are not so withered when you can share them with someone who has experienced something of a likeness, yet when someone hasn't.. well that's a different story. I'lll be happy to look at any leaves you find and I'll defo show you mine!

Luthien wrote:

ginnie wrote:What I was talking about was the framework of the experience, in this case, the story, the mythology, the symbolism is the framework. Looking at this framework is of great interest to some and holds little to no interest for others.

Ah, then you were indeed using that word in a different sense. Maybe it's because I am so thoroughly fed up with the Java EnterpriseSoftware Frameworks in my job.
I understood it as an intellectual / conceptual framework of ideas that would put the whole imaginal experience somewhere in a philosophical, or psychological, or religious or even scientific context, possibly also providing an explanation for how it might work.

That what you call framework, I have always thought about as something like creative or report-like expression of the experience, or maybe, carrier?

Yes, exactly, carrier, template or whatever works!

Luthien wrote:

ginnie wrote:However, when we wish to communicate these experiences then some framework is required.

Sure, but I just would not think of that as a framework, because that implies that there is a frame within which everything must necessarily stay.
Of course paint and music and drama all have their limits, but those limits feel more .. flexible, maybe?

Yes, and I see some of this conversation finding our common expression. I think it's expected that we'll have to clarify because we're still not used to the modes of expression we each have. Perhaps 'framework' is not a useful word and so, some other words will be found. It's a funny thing, because I know nothing of programming I wasn't aware of the rigidity involved with that word and a word that allows for flexibility is needed, so for now, carrier will do.

Luthien wrote:

ginnie wrote:This is so beautifully stated. I'm of two minds on this tho. No amount of intellectual information will unlock these doors, one must experience and only then speak of a thing otherwise it's all speculation. Yet, perhaps studying the frameworks allows some to approach these experiences in a, for them, safe way and provides the necessary energy to persist until they cross the threshold. You are completely right tho, standing in the vestibule and speaking of that which lies beyond is not the same as entering.

In the above, do you mean frameworks as in "the experience, in this case, the story, the mythology, the symbolism" or as how I understood it?

I meant the imaginal experience lies beyond the doors of concrete perception, and it's possible that for some, understanding the structure of myth, and other imaginal mediums allows them to approach it and maintain a close enough contact prior to actually being able to experience, otherwise some might simply shrug and move on.

Luthien wrote:

ginnie wrote:I think I understand, and I feel this too, because when I have felt like this I don't want to contaminate my message with undue influence because that leads to more conceptualization, and it also seems to threaten the freeness through must be present in order to look where one points.

Exactly, yes.

ginnie wrote:I don't know how else to express this. Influence may have the touch of violence in it?

I don't understand the bit about violence
Or maybe you refer to what I said about that I don't like to write like this ? That's not because it feels violent ... it feels unpleasant because I don't like discussions in the sense of "arguing" , which are almost often pointless and serve no purpose other than to deepen the gap that there was before the discussion took off.
In this case it felt as if I was repeatedly not understood (which was a bit frustrating), coupled with the sense that it was nonetheless important to keep trying (because I truly feel that it is an important point). This sort of forced me to do something that I seriously dislike, ie., to keep on trying to make this point clear. And because I really like Sarek a lot in a personal way I started to feel like I was nagging in a most hair-pulling way.

It was maybe a kind of cognitive dissonance. Like having been forced to shout all day to a class full of people with very sensitive ears

Well I caused quite a bit of that confusion myself. I think that 'violence' reference I am going to leave for now, it's not necessary and yet I may bring it up at some other point. It's a long and perhaps confusing explanation that is unlikely to add much here.

Luthien wrote:

ginnie wrote:Tho, what I am hearing is more a plea, maybe, "no, I want to journey with, my soul is lonely..join me"?

I won't deny that I have often felt like that, indeed.
It seems to come with doing this sort of thing. So yeah, that would indeed be great.(although I never felt alone in the Imaginal world, that's funny. Quite the contrary: it feels like home.)

No, I don't feel alone either then, it's only when I am returned and want to share.. then the yawning chasm seems awfully great.